Jim DeMint: “You can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative”

posted at 9:21 pm on November 9, 2010 by Allahpundit

That’s the money line from tonight’s Fox News “12 in ’12″ presidential profile; skip ahead to 3:00 if you don’t want to watch it all. He made this same point, albeit in a more elaborate way, at the Values Voter Summit in September. Let me gently suggest that this bumper-sticker version is doing him no favors, since it can’t help but alienate every last libertarian who sees it. His idea, as explained in greater detail at the VVS, is that God and government are forever jockeying for position as moral beacons in the public’s imagination. The bigger government gets, the smaller God gets, and vice versa, so if you’re eager to shrink state bureaucracy and promote self-reliance, expect people to react by looking elsewhere for moral guidance — like, say, back to traditional Judeo-Christian values. Thus are all fiscal cons also social cons, whether wittingly or not. And in fairness, that idea isn’t completely out of left field: There is indeed a relationship between God and government in the average person’s mind, although the touchstone is security, not morality. The less stable a government is, apparently, the more one turns to faith for reassurance that everything will be okay. The universe requires order and one or the other will provide it psychologically. (The U.S. is a notable exception to the either/or rule.) Which makes me wonder, how many fiscal cons support shrinking government because it means greater freedom for its own sake and how many support it simply as a means of moving people over to a different security blanket that they prefer?

Originally, I thought this message was just something DeMint was pitching at Christian conservatives to convince them that the tea party’s libertarianism is overblown, that they’re still a cherished constituency despite the reordering of conservative priorities to favor spending over “values.” But now I think he means it, which makes me wonder. For instance, last I checked, Glenn Beck’s a fiscal conservative (and notably a fan of the idea of Americans turning back to God) but also … fine with gay marriage. DeMint himself, however, is not: He told Al Hunt last year that neither the feds nor state governments should have the power to legalize same-sex unions. Per his God/government dynamic, I would think he’d support getting government out of the marriage business altogether and trusting in Judeo-Christian morals to handle this problem, but he still supports state recognition of traditional marriage as far as I can tell. Likewise with his comments about how gays and unwed mothers don’t belong in the classroom. Said GOProud’s founder Chris Barron of that, “The idea that someone who says they believe in limited government would support the government weeding out gay teachers and unmarried sexually active female teachers simply defies logic.” So maybe our error here is in assuming that when DeMint says “fiscal conservatism,” he means it as a byword for “less government” universally. Maybe government that works to reinforce Judeo-Christian values is fine. I guess, like Mitch McConnell, we all have our exceptions to the master plan.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

Nor do I recall anyone talking about barring gays from certain professions except for you.

Could you point it out to me?

BKennedy on November 10, 2010 at 12:01 AM

You do know that DeMint has been against Gays as teachers? For that matter he is against unmarried women who are sleeping with their boyfriends being teachers. Not sure why he thinks it’s okay for men who are doing the same thing to be teachers though, but then…

How is this becoming choice between the two? Either I support social conservatism, or I support far left insanity (or whatever it was you were trying to describe there)? I reject both.

Also, who knew that the DEA and mass incarceration where free?

strictnein on November 9, 2010 at 11:55 PM

Do you really think that after what we have seen in the last 24 months that there is some “middle ground” that you can stand on, and that obama/soros are going to let you? If you are not with them, you are against them, and they intend everyone who is not their robot to be destroyed. They are starting with the true conservatives, but they will get around to you if what you are saying is that you are lukewarm, in between, a moderate or something.

Do you really think that after what we have seen in the last 24 months that there is some “middle ground” that you can stand on, and that obama/soros are going to let you? If you are not with them, you are against them, and they intend everyone who is not their robot to be destroyed. They are starting with the true conservatives, but they will get around to you if what you are saying is that you are lukewarm, in between, a moderate or something.

I don’t trust the Libertarians. Medved has been a squish lately, but he was spot-on with his distain for ‘em. He calls ‘em Losertarians and I never waste a vote on them!

Gob on November 9, 2010 at 10:58 PM

I’m surprised that Medved, who I consider the ultimate RINO takes that view of libertarianism. He just went up a tic (stole your word) in my eyes. For the day, anyway.

P.S. I liked your standing tall as a PROUD social conservative. Although this fiscal/social divide is really a recent construct by the left in order to foment disunity. Allahpundit is falling for it and is being used by them in order to keep the pot boiling. Years ago the conservative divide was dove/hawk although both were still social and fiscal conservatives.

For me there is a lot of difference in believing certain things and trying to make them law. When Sen. DeMint starts writing legislation requiring everyone to live by his moral beliefs than we have something to work on, right now this is just the same freedom of speech everyone is entitled to.

You do know that DeMint has been against Gays as teachers? For that matter he is against unmarried women who are sleeping with their boyfriends being teachers. Not sure why he thinks it’s okay for men who are doing the same thing to be teachers though, but then…

Deanna on November 10, 2010 at 12:14 AM

I’m fairly certain Demint’s position is more nuanced and applies only to people who say use their classroom as a platform for their homosexuality or their sexual proclivities ala that one teacher unrepentantly bragging about all her multiple partners from when she was a hooker.

Btw. I won’t keep my religion out of politics because The Constitution doesn’t work that way. In fact is says you should keep politics out of my religion!

Libertarians have a choice. Either they can wake the hell up and realize that the left does not care about fiscal conservatism and will confiscate the libertarians wealth for their expansive programs or they can continue to screech and squeal that someone, somewhere might want to bring back sodomy laws to a small portion of southern Alabama, and use this as a basis to forfeit the good health of the society that surrounds them.

A very important point to raise. Many libertarians would argue that they have no interest in what is “abroad”, and I consider this downright selfish. I’m a neo-con libertarian.

John the Libertarian on November 10, 2010 at 12:18 AM

On domestic issues I think I have views ranging from conservative to libertarian. I think some of more libertarian views come from my advocacy for legalization of marijuana (to tax it and remove much of the crime element from it’s presence) and I generally don’t have any issue with gays getting married/civil unions or gays openly serving in the military.

I find myself wondering if a Libertarian C-in-C would commit ships to the effort off Somalia for example to fight piracy. They advocate for free markets but the piracy in that vital waterway abroad threatens the very free market they advocate for.

A lot of otherwise very smart people buy into this ‘You can’t legislate morality‘ without actually thinking about it.

It doesn’t actually mean a thing, it just sounds that way.

sharrukin on November 10, 2010 at 12:26 AM

Yes, sharrukin, and for those on this thread who don’t seem to get it and may fail the pop quiz, may they be reminded that our entire foundation in law and the basis for the Founder’s beliefs and philosphy was and is based on Judeo/Christian values, beginning with the Ten Commandments. Almost all of our legislation is based on these Judeo/Christian moral principles. They are the main reason that the United States in unique in the world.

And, the Left’s acts of legislating morality, or more precisely, immorality, (so I guess that’s OK to do since they set the rules), and stiffing us with the bill for the consequences, are legion and unending.

I’m surprised that Medved, who I consider the ultimate RINO takes that view of libertarianism. He just went up a tic (stole your word) in my eyes. For the day, anyway.

P.S. I liked your standing tall as a PROUD social conservative. Although this fiscal/social divide is really a recent construct by the left in order to foment disunity. Allahpundit is falling for it and is being used by them in order to keep the pot boiling. Years ago the conservative divide was dove/hawk although both were still social and fiscal conservatives.

tigerlily on November 10, 2010 at 12:31 AM

Really?
I think Medved is a little too much of a ‘party’ guy-and a jerk in person-but he’s certainly no RINO.
Actually RINO has come to describe anyone that doesn’t tow the conservative line 100% of the time.Mark Kirk(very far left GOP) might be a RINO-but Scott Brown(moderate)isn’t.
Like the boy who cried wolf-it doesn’t mean anything anymore.
Btw: I’m against sport hunting and support animal rights-a decidedly ‘left’ view.
Am I a RINO?
‘Course not.

Yes, sharrukin, and for those on this thread who don’t seem to get it and may fail the pop quiz, may they be reminded that our entire foundation in law and the basis for the Founder’s beliefs and philosphy was and is based on Judeo/Christian values, beginning with the Ten Commandments. Almost all of our legislation is based on these Judeo/Christian moral principles. They are the main reason that the United States in unique in the world.

And, the Left’s acts of legislating morality, or more precisely, immorality, (so I guess that’s OK to do since they set the rules), and stiffing us with the bill for the consequences, are legion and unending.

And, the Left’s acts of legislating morality, or more precisely, immorality, (so I guess that’s OK to do since they set the rules), and stiffing us with the bill for the consequences, are legion and unending.

tigerlily on November 10, 2010 at 12:41 AM

It is odd that social conservatives are so often accused of legislating morality, whatever that means, when in fact it is the leftists who propose law after law.

RINO means many things to many people, I guess. To me it does mean someone who doesn’t live by the Republican party Platform which is pro-family, pro-life, pro-capitalism, pro-liberty. Kirk supports partial birth abortion – he’s a monster in my book. Didn’t Brown vote with the Left on FinReg? If so, he’s very bad news. And yes, the arguments of taking what you can get in a blue state and be happy it wasn’t Coakley and can’t believe it was Kennedy’s seat are all written here so no one has to bother.

You do know that DeMint has been against Gays as teachers? For that matter he is against unmarried women who are sleeping with their boyfriends being teachers. Not sure why he thinks it’s okay for men who are doing the same thing to be teachers though, but then…

Just don’t touch their weed or their sexual proclivities and you’d be shocked how little libertarians care about “legislating morality,” at least if you judge by their posts.

BKennedy on November 10, 2010 at 12:52 AM

Sadly for too many, that is true. The government would be fine with it as well. Bread and circuses… as long as they let them rule without interference, I think the leftists would be fine with just about anything.

They have a law for every occasion and yet it is the social conservatives who are given the hairy eyeball.

sharrukin on November 10, 2010 at 12:50 AM

Perhaps it is because social cons routinely attempt to pass laws designed to impose their beliefs on what is permissible–prayer in school, teaching creationism, legislating sexuality, etc. The nanny state leftist ideas you cite are equally odious. That doesn’t make the social con stuff ok.

I’m fairly certain Demint’s position is more nuanced and applies only to people who say use their classroom as a platform for their homosexuality or their sexual proclivities ala that one teacher unrepentantly bragging about all her multiple partners from when she was a hooker.

BKennedy on November 10, 2010 at 12:38 AM

Well no…he said it more than once. The first time during a debate in 2004, which he later apologized for. But then he decided it was okay and said it agian thilast month.

The candidates were questioned about a state Republican Party platform item saying gays should not teach in public schools.

“I don’t think they should,” DeMint said then, adding that government should not endorse particular behaviors. “We need the folks that are teaching in schools to represent our values.”
DeMint expanded the list of people whom he thought should not teach in public schools.

They have a law for every occasion and yet it is the social conservatives who are given the hairy eyeball.

sharrukin on November 10, 2010 at 12:50 AM

Spot on! And the albatross of writing laws that repress or prohibit freedom that the Left tries to hang around conservative necks is alive and well here at HA. It’s amazing how many posters here have all echoed that same empty and deceitful accusation, expressing their fear that the controlling social cons are coming to take away their liberty. It would be funny if the times weren’t so dangerous. People now have a solemn responsibility to know who the enemy is and quit wasting time and energy being useful idiots for the Left. The Republic is burning to the ground, the arsonists are known, and yet so many here are throwing boulders at “their own”. If they want to fight on the same side, they should get to it.

A lot of otherwise very smart people buy into this ‘You can’t legislate morality‘ without actually thinking about it.

sharrukin on November 10, 2010 at 12:26 AM

Oh, no. We can and do legislate morality. My argument is that it doesn’t work. Look, I’m fairly sure you’ve driven faster than the posted speed limit. Aren’t you immoral for doing that?

When you keep drugs and prostitution illegal, you make the preposterous denial that these are among the oldest products and professions. You keep it dirty and dangerous. People are dying because we refuse to acknowledge it. I’m not saying we should embrace these behaviors. Keep them stigmatized. Fine. But clean them up, and when you regulate them, you have the opportunity to address the underlying problems that are causing the self-medicating behavior. If you ignore the behavior and judge it harshly, you perpetuate it by saying the individual is lost.

When you keep drugs and prostitution illegal, you make the preposterous denial that these are among the oldest products and professions. You keep it dirty and dangerous. People are dying because we refuse to acknowledge it. I’m not saying we should embrace these behaviors. Keep them stigmatized. Fine. But clean them up, and when you regulate them, you have the opportunity to address the underlying problems that are causing the self-medicating behavior. If you ignore the behavior and judge it harshly, you perpetuate it by saying the individual is lost.

John the Libertarian on November 10, 2010 at 1:01 AM

Except that isn’t what happens. When society accepts or legalizes something it expands.

Organized pimping, which is controlled by organized crime, is the major supplier of the night clubs and brothels, of which there are 700 in the Netherlands (18), where prostitution has been regulated since October 1, 2000. This legalization, which was intended to benefit prostituted people, according to its advocates, is probably a failure, since only 4% of them have registered. (19) This legalization was supposed to put an end to prostitution of minors. However, the Organization for the Rights of the Child, the headquarters of which is in Amsterdam, estimates that the number of minors who are prostituted in the Netherlands has increased from 4,000 in 1996 to 15,000 in 2001, including at least 5,000 who are of foreign origin. In Vienna, Austria, the number of prostituted people was estimated at the start of 2000 at between 6,000 and 8,000 ; only 600 of them were registered. (20) Ten years later, there were 800 registered prostituted people and approximately 2,800 illegal prostituted people. In 1995, the number of registered prostituted people had dropped to 670, whereas the number of illegals had climbed to 4,300.

And while you may think I’m being presumptuous ernesto, what I am being is sick and tired of seeing this nation pushed so far out of line by the Left and the immorality that comes with them as sure as fleas love dogs that I’ve made the decision that I’m not going to take it any more. I’m pushing back and maybe your Leftist sensibilties are shocked that it’s on. But it is. It is so very, very on. You can call me names all you want, but the time for me pussyfooting around while my country falls to her knees because of people like you is over.

I agree about Kirk-but I voted for him anyway because I didn’t want a mob banker who also supports PBA as my senator.
Honestly-I’m seething more over Pat Quinn’s retention as governor than anything else.

The truth about DeMint is finally coming out. Just another ‘my way or no way’ and his is the only opinion that counts. I am a huge fiscal conservative but even though I am pro-life I don’t consider myself a social conservative which to many people has negative vibes.

In fact you can just call me a common sense conservative who is for less taxes, smaller government, strong defense and homeland security, strict constructionist judges and social issues belonging in the state, my home, and in my community. Do not believe they are federal issues.

I resent anyone inferring that as a fiscal conservative that I am also a ‘social’ conservative.

Except that isn’t what happens. When society accepts or legalizes something it expands.

sharrukin on November 10, 2010 at 1:12 AM

And this is my greatest dilemma with libertarianism. When you move the line in the sand, society will demand it be moved even more.

But perhaps it is the optimist in me that believes progress can be made. Again, it is my pessimism in all things government that keeps me from changing the laws. If, for example, a heroin addict could get his fix from a regulated government store that tracked his usage, and gave incentives to meet with a counselor who could treat the underlying issues leading to that behavior, and the counselor was so good at his/her job that he/she could accomplish this in a non-judgmental way, that may actually work miracles. But I can’t see this happening with a DMV employee.

I agree about Kirk-but I voted for him anyway because I didn’t want a mob banker who also supports PBA as my senator.
Honestly-I’m seething more over Pat Quinn’s retention as governor than anything else.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 10, 2010 at 1:18 AM

If the choice is so evil, as between Kirk and Alexi, then my route is abstention. And sadly but true, when I saw how tight the race was between Brady, (such a strong fiscal and pro-life conservative, such a good man!) and Quinn, I knew the Chicago masters of fraud would bring it home for Quinn.
Wait until Rahm gets into the Mayors office and the obama incited riots begin and Rahm tells the cops to stand down because otherwise they might act stupidly. Good times ahead.

Perhaps it is because social cons routinely attempt to pass laws designed to impose their beliefs on what is permissible–prayer in school(free exercise of religion), teaching creationism (free exercise of religion and stop government funding of schools), legislating sexuality(Explain yourself),

Do you really think that after what we have seen in the last 24 months that there is some “middle ground” that you can stand on, and that obama/soros are going to let you? If you are not with them, you are against them, and they intend everyone who is not their robot to be destroyed. They are starting with the true conservatives, but they will get around to you if what you are saying is that you are lukewarm, in between, a moderate or something.

tigerlily on November 10, 2010 at 12:20 AM

You’re thinking is limited by a one dimensional political spectrum that is a media fabrication for simple minds.

And again, with the “true conservatives” nonsense? Was my earlier reference to the No True Scotsman fallacy too vague?

When you keep drugs and prostitution illegal, you make the preposterous denial that these are among the oldest products and professions. You keep it dirty and dangerous. People are dying because we refuse to acknowledge it. I’m not saying we should embrace these behaviors. Keep them stigmatized. Fine. But clean them up, and when you regulate them, you have the opportunity to address the underlying problems that are causing the self-medicating behavior. If you ignore the behavior and judge it harshly, you perpetuate it by saying the individual is lost.

John the Libertarian on November 10, 2010 at 1:01 AM

Except that isn’t what happens. When society accepts or legalizes something it expands.

Organized pimping, which is controlled by organized crime, is the major supplier of the night clubs and brothels, of which there are 700 in the Netherlands (18), where prostitution has been regulated since October 1, 2000. This legalization, which was intended to benefit prostituted people, according to its advocates, is probably a failure, since only 4% of them have registered. (19) This legalization was supposed to put an end to prostitution of minors. However, the Organization for the Rights of the Child, the headquarters of which is in Amsterdam, estimates that the number of minors who are prostituted in the Netherlands has increased from 4,000 in 1996 to 15,000 in 2001, including at least 5,000 who are of foreign origin. In Vienna, Austria, the number of prostituted people was estimated at the start of 2000 at between 6,000 and 8,000 ; only 600 of them were registered. (20) Ten years later, there were 800 registered prostituted people and approximately 2,800 illegal prostituted people. In 1995, the number of registered prostituted people had dropped to 670, whereas the number of illegals had climbed to 4,300.

sharrukin on November 10, 2010 at 1:12 AM

This bears repeating. Women and children are not well served by expanding the availabilty of drugs, prostitution or porn. The don’t “stay dirty and dangerous” because they are illegal. They are dirty and dangerous by their very nature and for that reason they are illegal.

Don`t you mean Representative Republic when speaking of these United States?

bluemarlin on November 10, 2010 at 12:53 AM

No, I mean democracy. A republic is an evolution of straight democracy. (Or do you not believe in evolution?)

We still have some forms of direct democracy. Look at prop 19, prop 8, etc.

Point remains, greeks have been there done that 450 years before jesus even existed.

So when someone says we’re founded on judeo christian values.. I just kinda laugh. This country is based on western values, sure. We had some radical ideas, sure. Can jesus take credit? Sure if you ignore 600 years of history.

But perhaps it is the optimist in me that believes progress can be made.

John the Libertarian on November 10, 2010 at 1:25 AM

Well I can tell you that being kind to drug addicts isn’t an actual kindness if you care about them. I am very cynical about addressing ‘underlying issues’ for anything. Give them real incentives to change and real pain to stay where they are and you will see better results than most recovery programs. Their souls and their psychology I would leave to recover on their own.

Bangkok exists and we are naive if we think we couldn’t see the same sort of thing here. We are not a breed apart. The moral precepts of the population is the only thing that stops those things from happening, and if we lose that moral compass who can say where we will end up.

Well I can tell you that being kind to drug addicts isn’t an actual kindness if you care about them. I am very cynical about addressing ‘underlying issues’ for anything. Give them real incentives to change and real pain to stay where they are and you will see better results than most recovery programs. Their souls and their psychology I would leave to recover on their own.

Bangkok exists and we are naive if we think we couldn’t see the same sort of thing here. We are not a breed apart. The moral precepts of the population is the only thing that stops those things from happening, and if we lose that moral compass who can say where we will end up.

sharrukin on November 10, 2010 at 1:37 AM

There is a program for hard core drug addicts started several years ago by a little Italian nun. The addicts live there full time and it is called the Communita Cenecolo. It has branches now all over Europe, in Medjugorje and in St. Augustine, FL. Sister’s foundational prinicple is that all of us are broken inside and those who are addicted are simply more broken as they try to find their way to happiness through drugs. I’m not explaining it very well, but the success rate is over 75%. It is open to every race and creed, but they live a life of religious Catholic devotion. They pray together every day, attend Mass, and actually build (in Medjugorje, anyway) the buildings where they live, work and pray, from the stones they dig out of the ground. They have no modern amenities; they wash their clothing by hand. Their buildings, carpentry, painting of the Icons in the Chapel and crafts are all magnificent. They put on a show every year which tell the story of Adam and Eve, the Fall and the mandkind’s redemption through Christ. They have strong bonds with each other; newcomers receive one person – a “Guardian Angel”, and addict much further along the road to recovery who is with them night and day for the first month of arrival. They receive spiritual guidance from holy priests and truly find peace. They can live there for up to five years, truly finding a new life. It is a really incredible place; built on the simple Commandments and sacrifical love.

I’m not explaining it very well, but the success rate is over 75%. It is open to every race and creed, but they live a life of religious Catholic devotion. They pray together every day, attend Mass, and actually build (in Medjugorje, anyway) the buildings where they live, work and pray, from the stones they dig out of the ground.

tigerlily on November 10, 2010 at 1:52 AM

75% is a very impressive rate. I guess they build them back up as individuals and give them a responsible place within a community. Honest pride in what they have done and the sense that there is more to the world than just themselves.

Hey I have a question why is it liberals, who are always pro abortion and never compromise, who are alsways pro gay-marriage and never compromise, who are always willing to spend more of your tax dollars on illegal aliens and crooks who cheat the public safety net are never called to the table for their unflinching votes on social issues? You never ask them to compromise on anything, we must always abandon fiscal responsibility for social liberalism.

75% is a very impressive rate. I guess they build them back up as individuals and give them a responsible place within a community. Honest pride in what they have done and the sense that there is more to the world than just themselves.

sharrukin on November 10, 2010 at 2:03 AM

Yes, that’s very much it. And their success rate is really astounding; it’s unheard of in the world of secular rehabs.

The less stable a government is, apparently, the more one turns to faith for reassurance that everything will be okay.
– Allahpundit, November, 2010

I thought this sounded familiar. And I found a high profile American politician who completely agrees:

So, it depends on where you are, but I think it’s fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government….

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Yes, that’s very much it. And their success rate is really astounding; it’s unheard of in the world of secular rehabs.

tigerlily on November 10, 2010 at 2:08 AM

I looked them up on a forum that was very critical of them and to be honest they seem like a good pattern for other drug rehabilitation programs. I have often commented to a friend of mine that the best thing you could do for drug addicts and prostitutes is to sentence them to a military style turnip farm for six months.

The Communita Cenecolo is voluntary and superior, but it seems fairly close to the same idea. Remove them from the old habits and get them to do real work and have a sense of pride in themselves. A work farm would find that more difficult than Communita Cenecolo but it would be better than nothing. Not sure if you could repeat the same success rate in a secular environment though.

A true conservative has to be socially conservative, as well as fiscally?

What if I’m not a foreign policy hawk? What if I think invasions constitute a poor counter terrorism policy? Does that degrade my conservo-cred?

Please.

blatantblue on November 9, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Before this “fiscal/social” conservative construct came about to divide us (was it the Left that came up with these labels that the children so happily allowed themselves to be pinned with because they really didn’t want to be associated with those rube pro-lifers and marriage defense freaks?) there really was only one definition of conservative and that was fiscal AND social. And, although you sarcastically ask the question, I’ll give you the answer anyway: Yes, conservatives used to split only along the lines of “hawk/dove”. One could be either but still be considered a conservative because one still upheld the fiscal/social principles.

The less stable a government is, apparently, the more one turns to faith for reassurance that everything will be okay.
– Allahpundit, November, 2010

I thought this sounded familiar. And I found a high profile American politician who completely agrees:So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

– Obama, April, 2008
TheBigOldDog on November 9, 2010 at 10:14 PM

Who let the Dog out?
tigerlily on November 10, 2010 at 2:12 AM

The BigOldDog hit a bullseye

Jim DeMint merely continues the massive body of argument available from the Founders.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Geo Washington 1796)

Per his God/government dynamic, I would think he’d support getting government out of the marriage business altogether and trusting in Judeo-Christian morals to handle this problem, but he still supports state recognition of traditional marriage as far as I can tell – ap

It is in the classroom where government stays in the business, because ultimately, classrooms teach and/or enforce morality at some level. Since public classrooms are government controlled, the morality comes from government dictates, and that is the problem. Institutionalizing something like gay marriage inevitably means it will be taught as a valid norm in public classrooms. This is the difference between tolerance, and institutionalizationm or celebration, of a concept.

No, I haven’t seen any secular numbers to compare. A materially spartan but spiritually and emotionally rich environment, along with a truly personal and ongoing experience with God the Father are the heart of the program; it’s what Sister Alvera, the Foundress intended for all who come. I have heard testimony from an addict who came as a non-believer. He came to the Communita of his own accord and wasn’t forced to stay or to believe in God, but he did have to participate in the program in order to stay. Thus, he had to be present for Mass and to pray the rosary. Although it may not happen that way for all who have not yet come to believe, the fellow that I heard speak did have a beautiful conversion story to tell along with his liberation from drug addiction.

You want to base your morality on nothing and get upset when that it is pointed out.

Nature doesn’t grant you anything. You want to call them self-evident, wave your arms a lot and call it good enough.

It isn’t.

sharrukin on November 10, 2010 at 12:12 AM

It’s based on nature. We are sentient beings with the ability to reason.

Do no harm or foul is our natural law.

To pretend we were not social animals prior to Christianity is asinine. How did civilization exist before Christianity? People were all running around stabbing each other in the back, killing aimlessly, raping and pillaging with no thought of tomorrow? Of course not.

You may not feel you have an innate sense of right and wrong. And you can pretend you don’t have a conscience to make your argument.

But natural law, inherent rights exist. And they existed long before Christianity ever came about. (Or for that matter prior to Judaism as well)

Many thanks for your quote from George Washington. I’m going to save it and you may see it pop up from time to time. And you get an A+ on your analysis on tolerance vs government mandate as a norm re: homosexuality, which will be forced in all it’s graphic detail on schoolchildren if it is given “equivalence” to marriage. Maybe that’s the endgame anyway. The “marriage” demand is just the way to force it into the minds of tens of millions of children K-12. Welcome to the jungle.

Nihilist arguments are nothing new. But the nihilist is always arguing against himself because the premise of their argument is that you shouldn’t believe what they say. It’s an absolute contradiction and is useless for anything beyond thought experiments.

People were all running around stabbing each other in the back, killing aimlessly, raping and pillaging with no thought of tomorrow? Of course not.
You may not feel you have an innate sense of right and wrong. And you can pretend you don’t have a conscience to make your argument.

But natural law, inherent rights exist. And they existed long before Christianity ever came about. (Or for that matter prior to Judaism as well)

ButterflyDragon on November 10, 2010 at 3:30 AM

You may want to check some African or American history. Both continents harbored peoples who made war on their neighbors as a constant way of life and the practice of cannibalism, genital mutilation which resulted in the victor wearing the gentitals as a necklace or eating them and horrific torture of their fellow man done for no other reason than as a form of entertainment were not exceptional occurances. In these societies a stab in the back or a rape would be a walk in the park.

And did natural law exist before Christianity? Yes, but it didn’t predate Christ, it’s Creator.

You’re putting the cart before the horse. A moral society would never legalize abortion. The morality must be compromised first, and that’s why attempts to legislate morality don’t work. Change the morality of the culture and the legislative changes will follow naturally.

To pretend we were not social animals prior to Christianity is asinine. How did civilization exist before Christianity? People were all running around stabbing each other in the back, killing aimlessly, raping and pillaging with no thought of tomorrow? Of course not.

Any old moral code is not what you want though is it?

The moral code of Sharia exists that is fine with a woman being stoned to death for the crime of being raped.

You may not feel you have an innate sense of right and wrong. And you can pretend you don’t have a conscience to make your argument.

My innate sense of right and wrong is repulsed by what Muslims do under Sharia law. That obviously is not something shared by Muslims who endorse Sharia law.

So what do you mean by innate?

But natural law, inherent rights exist. And they existed long before Christianity ever came about. (Or for that matter prior to Judaism as well)

ButterflyDragon on November 10, 2010 at 3:30 AM

The truth is that what you now claim as inherent was nothing of the sort. Slavery was common to all societies so what rights do you mean? Not the equality of man, not freedom, that much is certain.

Ancient societies had little regard for strangers and they could pretty much do anything to them unless they were protected by the king.

Genghis Khan…
“The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.”

That’s exactly what they’re doing. Haven’t you been reading the posts you applaud? They’re stating there is no such thing as morality. There is no natural law. That no higher power endowed humans with any types of rights. That has been their whole argument.

There is no natural law. That no higher power endowed humans with any types of rights. That has been their whole argument.

That’s nihilism. The belief in NOTHING.

ButterflyDragon on November 10, 2010 at 4:11 AM

No actually what I am saying is that theology is the only logical source of rights. Secular sources fail due to their being derived from a priori arguments. There is no ‘right to self-ownership’ or a ‘right to life’ that can be found in nature.

No actually what I am saying is that theology is the only logical source of rights. Secular sources fail due to their being derived from a priori arguments. There is no ‘right to self-ownership’ or a ‘right to life’ that can be found in nature.

sharrukin on November 10, 2010 at 4:18 AM

No, what you’re saying is that your completely insane! Theology is a source of human suffering and slavery to authoritarian dogma, masquerading as “salvation” in some existence after you’re dead.

I like and admire DeMint quite a lot but strongly disagree with him on this issue. There is a bumper-sticker on which
.

(a) those who deem a limited-government political philosophy to be unsupportable absent being based on theological beliefs (i.e., beliefs in the existence of objective moral standards and rights endowed in humans by a Creator “above” government) and
.

(b) those who deem such limited-government philosophy to be supportable on secular beliefs in the objective existence of moral standards and rights endowed in humans by a secular Creator that is intrinsically “above,” or superior to, government
.

Being fiscally responsible for your own actions and yet being socially liberal is my motto. I do wish that there were not as many divorces as there are, but I have no say in what people do in their private lives. And, even Ronald Reagan saw that gay witch hunts in our public schools was not a good idea…………….There will be no President DeMint.